MINUTES

OF THE

CRANBURY TOWNSHIP

PLANNING BOARD

CRANBURY, NEW JERSEY

MIDDLESEX COUNTY

 

 

TIME AND PLACE OF MEETING

 

            The regular meeting of the Cranbury Township Planning Board was held at the Cranbury Town Hall Municipal Building, Old School Building, 23-A North Main Street, Cranbury, New Jersey, Middlesex County, on July 12, 2007 at 7:30 p.m

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

Jim Golubieski, Vice Chairperson, of the Cranbury Township Planning Board, called the meeting to order and acted as the Chairman thereof.

 

STATEMENT OF ADEQUATE NOTICE

 

            Pursuant with the Sunshine Law adequate notice in accordance with the open public meeting act was provided of this meeting’s date, time, place and agenda was mailed to the news media, posted on the Township bulletin board, mailed to those requesting personal notice, and filed with the municipal clerk.

 

MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE

 

Michael Dulin, James Golubieski, Allen Kehrt, Thomas Panconi, Eugene Speer, Richard Stannard, Dietrich Wahlers

 

PROFESSIONALS IN ATTENDANCE

 

Josette C. Kratz, Secretary; Cathleen Marcelli, P.E.; Joseph Stonaker, Esquire; Richard Preiss, P.P.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

There were no public comments made.

 

 

 

APPLICATIONS

 

PB140-07         Kuehne + Nagel, Inc. (Formerly Rock Cranbury)

Block 8, Lot 1.01, Zone LI

324 Half Acre Road

Minor Site Plan for a Concrete Pad

 

REPRESENTATIVES:             Steve Barcan, Esquire

                                                Tim Watts, Construction/Property Manager, Rock Cranbury LLC

 

There were no reports from the Township Professionals for this application.

 

Mr. Barcan explained that this was an approval of minor site plan for a backup generator for compressor equipment use in connection with Botox which is required to be chilled.  The generator, supplied with natural gas, would only be used during a power failure.

 

EXHIBIT A-1   Site Plan

EXHIBIT A-2   Site Plan

EXHIBIT A-3   July 9, 2007 Letter from Kuehne + Nagel, Inc.

 

Mr. Watts and Township Professionals were sworn.

 

Mr. Watts said this applicant occupied 430,000 SF of the 680,000 SF building.  The client/applicant was  Kuehne + Nagel, Inc.  They have began racking in the building with the intent of moving from a facility that they currently occupy in Jersey City.  The Letter from Kuehne + Nagel, Inc. indicated what is installed and intended to be install.

 

The 20 KW generator was smaller than most.

 

Mr. Preiss asked for fencing and landscaping around the fence to buffer to the existent there is supplement.

 

There were no public comments made when floor was open to the public.

 

Mr. Speer motioned for the approval with the addition that landscaping be provided along the fence as necessary and subject to the Township professionals approval.  Mr. Dulin seconded the motion.

 

VOTE ROLL CALL

 

              AYES:      Mr. Dulin, Mr. Golubieski, Mr. Panconi, Mr. Speer, Mr. Stannard,  Mr. Wahlers

             NAYS:      None

       ABSTAIN:      Mr. Kehrt

         ABSENT:      Ms. Weidner, Mr. Harvey

 

MOTION CARRIED

 

 

 

 

 

PB 138-07       The Blue Rooster Bakery

Block 23, Lot 109, Zone VC

17 North Main Street

Minor Site Plan w/Variances

 

REPRESENTATIVES:             David Orron, Esquire

                                                Karen Finagin, Owner/Applicant

                                                Chris Plunkett, Tree Expert

                                                George A. Fett, Architect

 

Proper notice was given.  Mr. Herbert announced that he reviewed the affidavit or service and proof of publication and conferred jurisdiction on the board to hear the matter.

 

Applicant’s representatives were sworn.

 

Mr. Fett and Mr. Plunkett gave their credentials and were accepted as professionals.

 

The Engineer’s memo requested copies of the easements.  Applicant presented EXHIBIT A2 & A3.  The easement created reserved to the owners 17 North Main the right to use.  EXHIBIT A4 was provided to assure the validity of the easement.

 

Mr. Orron said that the owner of the property was Finagan Property Management LLC., and the applicant was the same.  The application was reviewed by HPC and approved.

 

The proposal was for 17 North Main Street to convert an existing residence to a combination bakery and restaurant which was a permitted use.  The proposal included an addition of 995 SF one story addition at the rear which would serve as the bakery’s kitchen.  The remainder of the structure will remain virtually unchanged. 

 

EXHIBIT A-1   Site Plan, Sheet C2

EXHIBIT A-2   Copy of deed: Hoffman to Morgan 1963

EXHIBIT A-3   Copy of deed: Hoffman to Barlow 1963

EXHIBIT A-4   Letter from Premier

EXHIBIT A-5   Foam Core display board

EXHIBIT A-6   July 21 Letter Maxium

EXHIBIT A-7   June 30 letter Marlow

EXHIBIT A-8   Placard Board

EXHIBIT A-9   Floor Plan, Sheet A1 of Site Plan

EXHIBIT A-10 “Taking the Next Step”

 

Ms. Finagan explained that she was a long time resident of Cranbury that was glad to come back home to this location to serve real food to real people.  She felt that Cranbury was a gem with existing pedestrian traffic, a balance of commercial building and green space.  They would maintain the buildings architectural history of 1850.  They believed in the Slow Food principles and Jersey Fresh.

 

Everything would be prepared onsite.  If they were successful, they would like to open the second floor for meeting/private party area use.  The old porch in the rear would be removed.  Their business office would be located upstairs.  Façade would be in line with the community. A bench would be provided in the front area and maybe a few chairs on the porch but they would provide no wait-service outside.  Delivery trucks are expected to be mostly 20-footers with the exception of a larger truck delivery for flour where delivery personnel would have to crossover the adjacent properties.  They hoped their employees would be young people from the area.

 

The intent was to blend in the neighborhood and be a positive influence.

 

Access to the back during construction has been granted by two neighbors.  There were letters indicating EXHIBIT A6 & A7.

 

They had been in contact with Midco and received preliminary information.  So far it is expected that they would use 3 - 96 gallon commercial containers being the starting point with pick up twice per week.   They would be recycling.  Contianers would be carried out to the street.

 

There was question as to whether they could regulate the time of day Midco picked up.

 

Mr. Speer asked if the applicant submitted plans indicating that the shed was gone.

 

Mr. Orron said that they have to show revised plans.

 

Mr. Speer asked about questions pertaining to Ms. Marcelli’s report which addresses solid waste, landscaping and date of plans resolved.

 

Ms. Marcelli asked about an access agreement to use the sidewalk along the alleyway.  Ms. Finagan stated that they own most of the front and he owns most of the back of the sidewalk.

 

Mr. Orron said that their position was that this was a common walkway with an easement of necessity.  The property line transverses the properties at an angle.  Neither property owner can walk on the driveway without walking on each other’s property.

 

Ms. Marcelli said that it may have not been such an issue when used as a residential structure but were now talking a commercial use of the property.  Both are buying into the use of the properties and the approvals permission will carry on even if the properties are sold and the liberties need to be perfected.

 

Mr. Orron stated that 15 North Main was a business use also.

 

Ms. Marcelli asked how long would the containers sit out front and where would they be placed.  Ms. Finigan said that there was room between the sidewalk and the curb.  Ms. Marcelli said what would happen if a car was parked in front of it.  These are large containers and commercial trash for a restaurant use.  Her concern was with the public and there will be garbage cans out at night.  Ms. Finagan said that the baker would be there 4:30 a.m. and can put them out at that time.  Ms. Marcelli asked if the applicant would then have no problem with a condition that the trash would go out the morning of the pick-up.

 

Mr. Orron said that they could agree upon the condition that the garbage would not be left out overnight, but as part of the time of day they didn’t know if that was possible.

 

Ms. Marcelli suggested, in the absence of further information, the trash be out there no longer than two hours prior to pick up and no longer two hours after pick up.

 

Mr. Kehrt asked if the board had either the right to restrict deliveries or have the applicant prove access agreements exist.

 

Mr. Speer asked if the board could restrict no delivery on the south side unless the applicant shows prorf of easements.

 

Mr. Plunkett explained that the large maple located right on the edge of the proposed construction.  His opinion was the tree needed to be removed since the construction was going to take place within the critical root radius (12” to 18” for every inch of tree diameter).

 

There is a 31” diameter Pin Oak which was infected with bacterial leaf scorch. The tree was dying and removal was recommended.  The third tree was a black locust near the back corner with a split trunk.  It was 36” diameter shading some nicer trees.  The split truck, at 5 ft above the ground, was cracked and formed at the junction of the two leads.  When the trunk failed it would take the American Holly with it.  He estimated these trees at 50 to 100 years old.

 

Ms. Marcelli recommended supplementation so there was a buffer row for the evergreens if they failed during construction.

 

Mr. Speer asked if they would condition showing current landscaping and be subject to the approval after the construction since they can not anticipate the scope.  Mr. Stannard suggested something comparable.  Mr. Speer said it was very difficult since plans do not show what is out there right now nor did they know the existent of damage the construction would incur.

 

Mr. Orron said that in the event the existing landscaping does not survive or is not reasonably adequate from the neighboring property and reasonable planting will be provided.

 

Ms. Marcelli said that she also needed, subject to review and approval, the applicant to replace the neighbor’s trees.  She had no plan showing what the construction would disturb and the applicant was building an 8 ft basement right on the property line.  She did not feel comfortable without know exactly what the disturbance would be.  This board would be approving a plan that may have impact on the neighboring property.

 

Mr. Kehrt asked if there would be shoring of the basement while excavated.

 

Ms. Marcelli wanted a plan showing how the adjacent properties were going to be disturbed.

 

Ms. Finigan read “Taking the Next Step” aloud.

 

Floor was open to the public.

 

Stuart Alexander read a list of concerns (see attached)

 

Joanne Meehan, 38 Washington, as president of the business association was in favor of the application.

 

Ms. Morolda, 93 Halsey Reed Road, felt this would be a big boost.

 

Mr. Fett said that they were required, as a percentage of the construction cost, to make ADA improvements/compliance.  They would meet the compliance by putting in two handicapped bathrooms.

 

The board asked the applicant to come to a solution with the easement.

 

Ms. Marcelli wanted to see the information on the storm drainage issues, for ex.  The leader lines of the gutters.  She wanted a plan for the construction access.  She wanted information on the shoring showing that there will be no impact on the neighbors’ property and having it shown on the plan.  She wanted these things addressed so that what they had “in the field” was exactly as the board approves so there would be no discrepancies.

 

Mr. Kehrt asked, in terms of the future use, was the Board approving it as a 56-seat restaurant.  Ms. Marcelli said yes.  Mr. Preiss said that granting the variance would be granting the use.  If the board was comfortable with the use then they are comfortable with the intensity of the variance.

 

There was need for clarification of the percentage of the uses within the facility: retail, restaurant, etc.

 

It was concluded that the applicant would get the following information in addition to any items discussed during this hearing and submit it to the Board office prior to July 20th for the August 2nd hearing:

 

1.       Detailed landscaping plan including current screen up to the south.

2.       Detail on tree damage.

3.       Proposed trees and locations.

4.       Drainage.

5.       Shoring?

6.       Construction access, across two properties including stabilization access.

7.       Easement issues.

8.       Air condition condenser location along with any other outside equipment locations.

9.       Ventilation of exhaust fans.

10.   Refuse information, including Midco.

 

Application would be continued until August 2nd without any further notice.

 

 

 

ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING

 

There being no further business, on motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was thereupon adjourned at 10:45 p.m.

 

CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY

 

                        I, Undersigned, do hereby certify;

 

                        That I am duly elected and acting secretary of the Cranbury Township Planning Board and, that the foregoing minutes of the Planning Board, held on July 12, 2007, consisting of 7 pages, constitute a true and correct copy of the minutes of the said meeting.

 

                        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name of said Planning Board this August 2, 2007.

 

 

                                                                                                                                   

                                                                        Josette C. Kratz, Secretary

 

 

/jck